Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Absolute value

2016-04-15T06:01:09Z

MelH: Abs again

If x is a negative number, then | x | = − x.
This is incorrect. It should read "If x is a negative number, then | - x | = x."

The latest change is an error. If x is a negative number, then -x is a positive number! It was correct before, the absolute value of x, where x is negative, is -x:
If x is negative, | x | = − x

:I see what you're saying...I think the working just needs to be changed. |-x| = x but if you declare before hand that x is negative to begin with then |x| is negative, but if you say it equals x, x is still assumed negative. Let's just reword the whole thing, shall we? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 20:48, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

:How about simply:
:<math>|x| = x</math>
:<math>|-x| = x</math>

or even show all the signs:
:<math>|+x| = +x</math>
:<math>|-x| = +x</math>

What do you think?--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 20:51, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

There should not be any signs inside the absolute value bars. That's where we're going off the rails. You should state the range of x, as in "if x is negative" and then show | x |. I know you want to have | -x | mean something like "the absolute value of a negative number" but that's not what it means. It was correct before: "If x is negative, then | x | = -x." You have to think about what it means for a second, but math is like that. [[User:MelH|MelH]] ([[User talk:MelH|talk]]) 22:58, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

:I see what you are getting at, but you can have a negative number inside ||, it just translates to positive. You see this in just about ever math textbook. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 00:44, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
::Sure. But your confusing two things. What you see is statements like | -3 | = 3. That's different from, "for negative x, | -x | = ..." The first is an example, and it's clear. The second is confused. The "for negative x" part says that x IS a negative number, like -3. "| -x |" then becomes a positive number, like 3. Examples with negative constants are fine. Examples with variables that have been asserted to represent negative numbers, which are then negated, not fine. [[User:MelH|MelH]] ([[User talk:MelH|talk]]) 02:01, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Talk:Absolute value

2016-04-15T02:58:03Z

MelH: More on abs

Talk:Absolute value

2016-04-15T00:38:33Z

MelH: I'm afraid it was correct as stated.

Amplitude modulation

2016-04-14T22:26:12Z

MelH: There are more than two forms of modulation.

[[File:Radio transmission waves(AM and FM).gif|thumbnail|The Audio Signal (top) is transmitted on a carrier wave by modifying the [[amplitude]] (middle) or [[frequency]] (bottom)]]
'''Amplitude modulation''' (AM) is one of several ways information is transmitted and received wirelessly using [[electromagnetic radiation]]. To transmit data or [[analog]] audio, a constant [[electromagnetic]] wave (carrier wave) is first produced. Then the [[amplitude]] of this wave is modified in a specific pattern which may be translated back into audio or other data at the receiving end.
Amplitude modulated signals tend to travel line-of-sight from the source. They also can be interfered with by lightning<ref>http://stormhighway.com/sferics.php</ref>. For these reasons as well as others, [[frequency modulation]] is sometimes a preferred method of communication. Another form of modulation, phase modulation, conveys information by instantaneous changes in the carrier wave's phase, rather than amplitude or frequency. Phase modulation is the basis of many digital communications standards, such as [[WiFi]].

==References==
{{reflist}}

Talk:Bias in sports

2015-08-04T03:33:44Z

MelH:

If the umpire and/or media allowed the bad call to go unchallenged because of liberal favoritism, the implication is that the Yankees were preferred over the (Brooklyn) Dodgers. Some explanation of why the Dodgers would have been seen as more conservative in 1956 would be helpful to clarify this example. [[User:MelH|MelH]] ([[User talk:MelH|talk]]) 23:33, 3 August 2015 (EDT)

2014-11-04T23:28:09Z

MelH: Created page with "The initial sentence of this article doesn't really make sense. "GMT is the mean time that the earth takes to rotate from noon-to-noon" would imply that "GMT" is a constant time ..."

Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-10-19T05:47:37Z

MelH: /* Aristotle and Motion */

== #2 ==

Greetings! I'm new here and point #2 prompted me to make my first edit and added a paragraph thereto. It turns out that the radius of Moon's orbit is in fact increasing, that this has been predicted mathematically in the late 19th century and confirmed by measurement in the 20th, and that this is due to tidal mechanics. In short: it's real, it's definitely not anomalous, and I don't recall anything about either GR or SR being concerned specifically with tidal mechanics. And yes, I do tend to favor long sentences. Cheers! [[User:Mbc|Mbc]] 02:22, 20 August 2012 (EDT)
== #5 ==
Quantum mechanics contradicts and disproves relativity. It's no consolation that relativity is approximately true at greater distances. Relativity is a mathematical theory that does not permit any exceptions. It would be like saying that 2 times 2 is usually 4. If 2 times 2 is ever not equal to 4, then arithmetic falls apart.--Andy Schlafly 23:27, 5 January 2014 (EST)
:Mathematics at times reaches limits. For example, in the function f(x) = 1/x as x approaches 0, f(0) is undefined and we have never seen that value. The same thing is true when applying quantum mechanics near a black hole. We have never visited near a black hole to gather data, and what happens at the black hole is undefined. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:31, 7 January 2014 (EST)
== #6 ==
That is like saying that "2+2" is usually 4. See my response to a similar point above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 5 January 2014 (EST)
:The counterexample here depends on accuracy of measurement. As we gather more and better data, the theory to explain the data will evolve and improve. Again, "2+2" is usually 4, but if f(x) = 1/(x-4), what is f(2+2)? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:44, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== #10 ==

You said that "Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance with regard to the direction of the force." I might be making a mistake, but shouldn't you be a little careful about this? If you rotate the frame, it's just fine as an inertial frame. But obviously, the force will have a different direction. But when you apply it to the two frames at hand, there is no rotation--just translation so the force has the same direction. (Also, does the other stuff I added look good?) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:Yes, that was a bit ambiguous - I've tidied it up. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:39, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== #36 ==

My edit to #36, (Lorentz aether theory), as a footnote on the counterexamples page itself, has been reverted on the grounds of being incoherent. Can someone help out? Is it equivalent to SR in all cases? Is it equivalent to GR in all cases? Why was it abandoned? Was it for reasons of religious faith? [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 19:29, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:First, being cautious in this matter is good. Before putting something on a public wiki, you should check your facts carefully.
:An important thing is to do your homework. Look around at the histories of pages, and the other contributions of people who write things. In this case, that's Roger Schlafly. What you will find is that he accepts relativity, but really doesn't like giving Einstein any credit for it. I don't know why. So, most likely, he wants the Lorentz theory to be considered the "authentic" theory, rather than Einsteinian relativity. Two things to do: Look at [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aether_%28science%29]] to get your bearings, and look at who wrote #36. It wasn't Roger.
:My understanding of the Lorentz theory is that it is equivalent to SR, but needs some fussing to get it equivalent to GR. Once that is done, it seems that the appropriately fussed Lorentz theory is equivalent, so you can say that "Einsteinian relativity has no aether, and Lorentz theory has an aether, but there is no experiment you can do to measure anything about it."
:If this turns out to be the situation, you might say something like "both theories are equivalent, so this doesn't make relativity wrong; it just makes Lorentz theory just as good." And remember, you are rebutting claims that relativity is wrong, not that there are no other equivalent theories.
:As far as the question of whether scientists prefer relativity for reasons of faith, my guess would be that relativity is simpler, because it doesn't postulate the existence of something that is completely unnecessary. I have no idea about people's reasons beyond that. My guess is that it's Occam's razor. I've never met anyone who embraces the Lorentz theory, and can't find an explanation of it in any of my textbooks or encyclopedias.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:37, 31 January 2012 (EST)

== Removal of "talk-page-like" material ==

I have taken the liberty of moving two comments, made and signed by Andy Schlafly, from the essay page itself to this talk page. It was my intent, when creating the page, that it be kept "professional" and "scientific" and "dispassionate". (Complete with the use of the editorial "we".) This means that back-and-forth arguing, and signed comments in particular, should be here on this talk page, and that disputes on the actual essay page be carried out in a dispassionate-sounding manner.

My actual vision, since it was inevitable that arguments would occur, was that, to use a military metaphor, the two sides lob shells at each other from behind the ramparts of their respective fortresses, rather than coming over for hand-to-hand combat. :-) That is, issues with this rebuttal page would be made by tightening up the arguments on the counterexamples page, would might lead to tightening up the arguments on the rebuttal page, and so on.

These comments were removed and folded into the narrative:

:(1) "This is because the experimental capability to do so doesn't exist." - if that were true, then [why] were the costly experiments done if relativists were going to ignore the negative results?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:(2) So? That wouldn't change the fact that this is a counterexample to Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:This is a bit odd. CP has an essay, largely written by Aschlafly, entitled "Counterexamples to Relativity." Presumably he states his best affirmative case there. CP also has this essay, entitled "Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" largely written by people who disagree with the first essay. So, in 2012, Aschlafly adds signed comments to the rebuttal page, agreed to stop and his signed comments were moved to this page. Now, in 2014, Aschlafly again leaves signed comments in the essay saying that he disagrees with the rebuttals as a matter of mathematical truth.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity&diff=prev&oldid=1072800][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity&diff=prev&oldid=1072803] The math behind both quantum mechanics and relativity is very difficult and subject to interpretation. It is not as clear as 2+2=4. I would suggest that Aschlafly make the original essay as clear and compelling as possible and that SamHB make the rebuttal essay as clear and compelling as possible, and that we trust the readers to understand that the authors disagree with each other without adding comments to the individual essay points repeating the fact of disagreement. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:22, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== Aristotle and Motion ==

[http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics4.htm#8 In Book 4, Chapter 8 of Physics], Aristotle taught that "We see that bodies which have a greater impulse either of weight or of lightness, if they are alike in other respects, move faster over an equal space, and in the ratio which their magnitudes bear to each other. Therefore they will also move through the void with this ratio of speed." [[User:MelH|MelH]] 03:01, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

:This seems to refer to the conservation of momentum of the type which occurs for example when a body collides with a stationary body. So that since ''mv''1i + 0 = ''mv''1f + ''mv''2f therefore ''mv''1i - ''mv''1f = ''mv''2f. The ''mv''1i - ''mv''1f is the impulse ''J''. So impulse ''J'' is equal to ''mv''2f, and bodies that are alike (the condition supposed by Aristotle) have the same ''m'' mass, so that ''J'' x constant (1/''m'') = ''v''2f. Therefore the ratio of ''J'' to ''v''2f is a constant (which incidentally is none other than ''m''), so ''v''2f does increase (move faster) in proportion to impulse ''J'' by the constant ratio (1/''m''). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:16, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::I think you're misinterpreting "impulse" as a more modern sense than Aristotle knew if you read this as about elastic collision. In any case, this section has been cited as the teaching, which Galileo sought to disprove at the Leaning Tower, that objects fell at a rate proportional to their mass. This is even mentioned in the [[Aristotle]] article here, so if you wish to argue otherwise you should raise the issue there. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 16:40, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
:::Do you suppose that you could have cited the wrong section? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::::I don't believe so. In this chapter, Aristotle is arguing against the "void," a concept similar to the vacuum. He correctly notes that the medium through which a body falls affects the rate of fall by resisting its motion. He incorrectly notes that the mass also affects the rate. He concludes that in no medium (the void) an object will fall infinitely fast. This absurd conclusion proves the impossibility of the void. The "impulse" of weight is what we would call gravity, but in his physics it was a function of that weight. If you read the whole chapter, the centrality of a falling object's velocity being determined by its mass is quite clear. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 17:54, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
:::But the "absurd conclusion" isn't relevant to anything we are discussing, and your use of it only serves to suggest his observation of the mass affecting the rate is somehow ''as'' absurd as infinitely fast decline!! Is that what you're trying to do? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
::::The "absurd conclusion" was the way Aristotle proved that there was no void. It's his application of logic, not mine. He shows that (because of the fact that we are discussing -- to wit -- mass has an innate character to fall (at a speed in proportion to itself) ) that the removal of all resistance due to medium results in an infinite rate of fall. He compares this with division by zero. Because infinite speed is impossible, he feels he as proven that there must always be a medium to resist falling bodies. He is arguing reductio ad absurdum. It is not me making an editorial comment! [[User:MelH|MelH]] 00:44, 19 October 2014 (EDT)
:::::Yes, you inserted this discussion of the void where it wasn't relevant to begin with. It's conclusions aren't relevant to the discussion. Yet you allowed them to sweep away the real subject (the interpretation of the earlier portion of the quotation before it gets applied to the case of the void) into discredit along with them. And here you are discussing them again as if its the reasoning itself rather than the ambiguity you introduced through the reasoning that's objectionable. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:07, 19 October 2014 (EDT)
::::::The chapter on the void is where Aristotle makes the statement that bodies fall in proportion to their weight. It's the key to his proof of the impossibility of the void. I'm afraid I've failed miserably at illuminating that point. I accept it is purely the fault of the logic of my presentation. I am no Aristotle. Feel free to ignore the argument. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 01:24, 19 October 2014 (EDT)
:::::Lol. Except we weren't discussing the void (on the Essay page where you linked to here, and where afterwards the link disappeared), just the arguments that he uses that happen to apply to the discussion of the void in the eighth chapter, and which could also apply to any number of other different discussions as well. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:42, 19 October 2014 (EDT)
:::And Aristotle's conception of gravity isn't the same as ours, yet we are to conclude he shared our conception of differentiating mass from weight?! And using this alleged conception of mass in various propositions is to you not only central, but its centralness is clear to you?! And clear to you to a nuanced degree?! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
:Perhaps I came across as disrespecting one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, for which I apologize. The intention of that whole section was to give examples of "accepted wisdom" being overthrown later by observation and experiment, and the gravity business, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, is a well known example. Perhaps a more nuanced treatment of Aristotle's role in this is called for.
:I do have a couple of web references that suggest a link between Aristotle and some kind of notion that heavier/denser objects fall faster. It may be a (wrong) conclusion that other people drew from what Aristotle said. In any case, I don't have time to work on that just now. Maybe this weekend.
:This has been the most interesting thing to happen at Conservapedia in a couple of years. Much better than the "atheism and applesauce" series. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:40, 15 October 2014 (EDT)

::Perhaps it isn't right to blame Aristotle specifically for this—the point of the item was to show that what is "accepted wisdom" in one era is debunked in another. But one can see how Aristotle got connected with this notion in public discourse. In [http://books.google.com/books?id=Vhx--jfFN8IC&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false this] we have
:::"'Bodies having a greater degree of heaviness or lightness but in all other respects having the same shape, traverse an equal space more rapidly in the same proportion as the quantities mentioned.' Thus, according to Aristotle, the velocity of a falling body is proportional to its weight."
::::Just to close the loop this is just a different translation of the passage from Book 4, Chapter 8, on the impossibility of the void, that I cited and discussed above. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 01:47, 19 October 2014 (EDT)
::And in [http://science.jrank.org/pages/3129/Gravity-Gravitation-history-gravity.html this] we have
:::"This was one of the earliest explanations of gravity: that it was the natural tendency for the heavier elements, earth and water, to return to their proper positions near the center of the Universe. Aristotle's theory was for centuries taken as implying [Note: just implying--SHB] that objects with different weights should fall at different speeds; that is, a heavier object should fall faster because it contains more of the centertrending elements, earth and water."

Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-10-19T05:24:45Z

MelH: /* Aristotle and Motion */

== #2 ==

Greetings! I'm new here and point #2 prompted me to make my first edit and added a paragraph thereto. It turns out that the radius of Moon's orbit is in fact increasing, that this has been predicted mathematically in the late 19th century and confirmed by measurement in the 20th, and that this is due to tidal mechanics. In short: it's real, it's definitely not anomalous, and I don't recall anything about either GR or SR being concerned specifically with tidal mechanics. And yes, I do tend to favor long sentences. Cheers! [[User:Mbc|Mbc]] 02:22, 20 August 2012 (EDT)
== #5 ==
Quantum mechanics contradicts and disproves relativity. It's no consolation that relativity is approximately true at greater distances. Relativity is a mathematical theory that does not permit any exceptions. It would be like saying that 2 times 2 is usually 4. If 2 times 2 is ever not equal to 4, then arithmetic falls apart.--Andy Schlafly 23:27, 5 January 2014 (EST)
:Mathematics at times reaches limits. For example, in the function f(x) = 1/x as x approaches 0, f(0) is undefined and we have never seen that value. The same thing is true when applying quantum mechanics near a black hole. We have never visited near a black hole to gather data, and what happens at the black hole is undefined. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:31, 7 January 2014 (EST)
== #6 ==
That is like saying that "2+2" is usually 4. See my response to a similar point above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 5 January 2014 (EST)
:The counterexample here depends on accuracy of measurement. As we gather more and better data, the theory to explain the data will evolve and improve. Again, "2+2" is usually 4, but if f(x) = 1/(x-4), what is f(2+2)? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:44, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== #10 ==

You said that "Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance with regard to the direction of the force." I might be making a mistake, but shouldn't you be a little careful about this? If you rotate the frame, it's just fine as an inertial frame. But obviously, the force will have a different direction. But when you apply it to the two frames at hand, there is no rotation--just translation so the force has the same direction. (Also, does the other stuff I added look good?) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:Yes, that was a bit ambiguous - I've tidied it up. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:39, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== #36 ==

My edit to #36, (Lorentz aether theory), as a footnote on the counterexamples page itself, has been reverted on the grounds of being incoherent. Can someone help out? Is it equivalent to SR in all cases? Is it equivalent to GR in all cases? Why was it abandoned? Was it for reasons of religious faith? [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 19:29, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:First, being cautious in this matter is good. Before putting something on a public wiki, you should check your facts carefully.
:An important thing is to do your homework. Look around at the histories of pages, and the other contributions of people who write things. In this case, that's Roger Schlafly. What you will find is that he accepts relativity, but really doesn't like giving Einstein any credit for it. I don't know why. So, most likely, he wants the Lorentz theory to be considered the "authentic" theory, rather than Einsteinian relativity. Two things to do: Look at [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aether_%28science%29]] to get your bearings, and look at who wrote #36. It wasn't Roger.
:My understanding of the Lorentz theory is that it is equivalent to SR, but needs some fussing to get it equivalent to GR. Once that is done, it seems that the appropriately fussed Lorentz theory is equivalent, so you can say that "Einsteinian relativity has no aether, and Lorentz theory has an aether, but there is no experiment you can do to measure anything about it."
:If this turns out to be the situation, you might say something like "both theories are equivalent, so this doesn't make relativity wrong; it just makes Lorentz theory just as good." And remember, you are rebutting claims that relativity is wrong, not that there are no other equivalent theories.
:As far as the question of whether scientists prefer relativity for reasons of faith, my guess would be that relativity is simpler, because it doesn't postulate the existence of something that is completely unnecessary. I have no idea about people's reasons beyond that. My guess is that it's Occam's razor. I've never met anyone who embraces the Lorentz theory, and can't find an explanation of it in any of my textbooks or encyclopedias.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:37, 31 January 2012 (EST)

== Removal of "talk-page-like" material ==

I have taken the liberty of moving two comments, made and signed by Andy Schlafly, from the essay page itself to this talk page. It was my intent, when creating the page, that it be kept "professional" and "scientific" and "dispassionate". (Complete with the use of the editorial "we".) This means that back-and-forth arguing, and signed comments in particular, should be here on this talk page, and that disputes on the actual essay page be carried out in a dispassionate-sounding manner.

My actual vision, since it was inevitable that arguments would occur, was that, to use a military metaphor, the two sides lob shells at each other from behind the ramparts of their respective fortresses, rather than coming over for hand-to-hand combat. :-) That is, issues with this rebuttal page would be made by tightening up the arguments on the counterexamples page, would might lead to tightening up the arguments on the rebuttal page, and so on.

These comments were removed and folded into the narrative:

:(1) "This is because the experimental capability to do so doesn't exist." - if that were true, then [why] were the costly experiments done if relativists were going to ignore the negative results?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:(2) So? That wouldn't change the fact that this is a counterexample to Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:This is a bit odd. CP has an essay, largely written by Aschlafly, entitled "Counterexamples to Relativity." Presumably he states his best affirmative case there. CP also has this essay, entitled "Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" largely written by people who disagree with the first essay. So, in 2012, Aschlafly adds signed comments to the rebuttal page, agreed to stop and his signed comments were moved to this page. Now, in 2014, Aschlafly again leaves signed comments in the essay saying that he disagrees with the rebuttals as a matter of mathematical truth.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity&diff=prev&oldid=1072800][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity&diff=prev&oldid=1072803] The math behind both quantum mechanics and relativity is very difficult and subject to interpretation. It is not as clear as 2+2=4. I would suggest that Aschlafly make the original essay as clear and compelling as possible and that SamHB make the rebuttal essay as clear and compelling as possible, and that we trust the readers to understand that the authors disagree with each other without adding comments to the individual essay points repeating the fact of disagreement. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:22, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== Aristotle and Motion ==

[http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics4.htm#8 In Book 4, Chapter 8 of Physics], Aristotle taught that "We see that bodies which have a greater impulse either of weight or of lightness, if they are alike in other respects, move faster over an equal space, and in the ratio which their magnitudes bear to each other. Therefore they will also move through the void with this ratio of speed." [[User:MelH|MelH]] 03:01, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

:This seems to refer to the conservation of momentum of the type which occurs for example when a body collides with a stationary body. So that since ''mv''1i + 0 = ''mv''1f + ''mv''2f therefore ''mv''1i - ''mv''1f = ''mv''2f. The ''mv''1i - ''mv''1f is the impulse ''J''. So impulse ''J'' is equal to ''mv''2f, and bodies that are alike (the condition supposed by Aristotle) have the same ''m'' mass, so that ''J'' x constant (1/''m'') = ''v''2f. Therefore the ratio of ''J'' to ''v''2f is a constant (which incidentally is none other than ''m''), so ''v''2f does increase (move faster) in proportion to impulse ''J'' by the constant ratio (1/''m''). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:16, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::I think you're misinterpreting "impulse" as a more modern sense than Aristotle knew if you read this as about elastic collision. In any case, this section has been cited as the teaching, which Galileo sought to disprove at the Leaning Tower, that objects fell at a rate proportional to their mass. This is even mentioned in the [[Aristotle]] article here, so if you wish to argue otherwise you should raise the issue there. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 16:40, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
:::Do you suppose that you could have cited the wrong section? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::::I don't believe so. In this chapter, Aristotle is arguing against the "void," a concept similar to the vacuum. He correctly notes that the medium through which a body falls affects the rate of fall by resisting its motion. He incorrectly notes that the mass also affects the rate. He concludes that in no medium (the void) an object will fall infinitely fast. This absurd conclusion proves the impossibility of the void. The "impulse" of weight is what we would call gravity, but in his physics it was a function of that weight. If you read the whole chapter, the centrality of a falling object's velocity being determined by its mass is quite clear. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 17:54, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
:::But the "absurd conclusion" isn't relevant to anything we are discussing, and your use of it only serves to suggest his observation of the mass affecting the rate is somehow ''as'' absurd as infinitely fast decline!! Is that what you're trying to do? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
::::The "absurd conclusion" was the way Aristotle proved that there was no void. It's his application of logic, not mine. He shows that (because of the fact that we are discussing -- to wit -- mass has an innate character to fall (at a speed in proportion to itself) ) that the removal of all resistance due to medium results in an infinite rate of fall. He compares this with division by zero. Because infinite speed is impossible, he feels he as proven that there must always be a medium to resist falling bodies. He is arguing reductio ad absurdum. It is not me making an editorial comment! [[User:MelH|MelH]] 00:44, 19 October 2014 (EDT)
:::::Yes, you inserted this discussion of the void where it wasn't relevant to begin with. It's conclusions aren't relevant to the discussion. Yet you allowed them to sweep away the real subject (the interpretation of the earlier portion of the quotation before it gets applied to the case of the void) into discredit along with them. And here you are discussing them again as if its the reasoning itself rather than the ambiguity you introduced through the reasoning that's objectionable. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:07, 19 October 2014 (EDT)
::::::The chapter on the void is where Aristotle makes the statement that bodies fall in proportion to their weight. It's the key to his proof of the impossibility of the void. I'm afraid I've failed miserably at illuminating that point. I accept it is purely the fault of the logic of my presentation. I am no Aristotle. Feel free to ignore the argument. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 01:24, 19 October 2014 (EDT)
:::And Aristotle's conception of gravity isn't the same as ours, yet we are to conclude he shared our conception of differentiating mass from weight?! And using this alleged conception of mass in various propositions is to you not only central, but its centralness is clear to you?! And clear to you to a nuanced degree?! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
:Perhaps I came across as disrespecting one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, for which I apologize. The intention of that whole section was to give examples of "accepted wisdom" being overthrown later by observation and experiment, and the gravity business, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, is a well known example. Perhaps a more nuanced treatment of Aristotle's role in this is called for.
:I do have a couple of web references that suggest a link between Aristotle and some kind of notion that heavier/denser objects fall faster. It may be a (wrong) conclusion that other people drew from what Aristotle said. In any case, I don't have time to work on that just now. Maybe this weekend.
:This has been the most interesting thing to happen at Conservapedia in a couple of years. Much better than the "atheism and applesauce" series. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:40, 15 October 2014 (EDT)

::Perhaps it isn't right to blame Aristotle specifically for this—the point of the item was to show that what is "accepted wisdom" in one era is debunked in another. But one can see how Aristotle got connected with this notion in public discourse. In [http://books.google.com/books?id=Vhx--jfFN8IC&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false this] we have
:::"'Bodies having a greater degree of heaviness or lightness but in all other respects having the same shape, traverse an equal space more rapidly in the same proportion as the quantities mentioned.' Thus, according to Aristotle, the velocity of a falling body is proportional to its weight."
::And in [http://science.jrank.org/pages/3129/Gravity-Gravitation-history-gravity.html this] we have
:::"This was one of the earliest explanations of gravity: that it was the natural tendency for the heavier elements, earth and water, to return to their proper positions near the center of the Universe. Aristotle's theory was for centuries taken as implying [Note: just implying--SHB] that objects with different weights should fall at different speeds; that is, a heavier object should fall faster because it contains more of the centertrending elements, earth and water."

Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-10-19T04:46:54Z

MelH: /* Aristotle and Motion */

== #2 ==

Greetings! I'm new here and point #2 prompted me to make my first edit and added a paragraph thereto. It turns out that the radius of Moon's orbit is in fact increasing, that this has been predicted mathematically in the late 19th century and confirmed by measurement in the 20th, and that this is due to tidal mechanics. In short: it's real, it's definitely not anomalous, and I don't recall anything about either GR or SR being concerned specifically with tidal mechanics. And yes, I do tend to favor long sentences. Cheers! [[User:Mbc|Mbc]] 02:22, 20 August 2012 (EDT)
== #5 ==
Quantum mechanics contradicts and disproves relativity. It's no consolation that relativity is approximately true at greater distances. Relativity is a mathematical theory that does not permit any exceptions. It would be like saying that 2 times 2 is usually 4. If 2 times 2 is ever not equal to 4, then arithmetic falls apart.--Andy Schlafly 23:27, 5 January 2014 (EST)
:Mathematics at times reaches limits. For example, in the function f(x) = 1/x as x approaches 0, f(0) is undefined and we have never seen that value. The same thing is true when applying quantum mechanics near a black hole. We have never visited near a black hole to gather data, and what happens at the black hole is undefined. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:31, 7 January 2014 (EST)
== #6 ==
That is like saying that "2+2" is usually 4. See my response to a similar point above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 5 January 2014 (EST)
:The counterexample here depends on accuracy of measurement. As we gather more and better data, the theory to explain the data will evolve and improve. Again, "2+2" is usually 4, but if f(x) = 1/(x-4), what is f(2+2)? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:44, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== #10 ==

You said that "Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance with regard to the direction of the force." I might be making a mistake, but shouldn't you be a little careful about this? If you rotate the frame, it's just fine as an inertial frame. But obviously, the force will have a different direction. But when you apply it to the two frames at hand, there is no rotation--just translation so the force has the same direction. (Also, does the other stuff I added look good?) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:Yes, that was a bit ambiguous - I've tidied it up. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:39, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== #36 ==

My edit to #36, (Lorentz aether theory), as a footnote on the counterexamples page itself, has been reverted on the grounds of being incoherent. Can someone help out? Is it equivalent to SR in all cases? Is it equivalent to GR in all cases? Why was it abandoned? Was it for reasons of religious faith? [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 19:29, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:First, being cautious in this matter is good. Before putting something on a public wiki, you should check your facts carefully.
:An important thing is to do your homework. Look around at the histories of pages, and the other contributions of people who write things. In this case, that's Roger Schlafly. What you will find is that he accepts relativity, but really doesn't like giving Einstein any credit for it. I don't know why. So, most likely, he wants the Lorentz theory to be considered the "authentic" theory, rather than Einsteinian relativity. Two things to do: Look at [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aether_%28science%29]] to get your bearings, and look at who wrote #36. It wasn't Roger.
:My understanding of the Lorentz theory is that it is equivalent to SR, but needs some fussing to get it equivalent to GR. Once that is done, it seems that the appropriately fussed Lorentz theory is equivalent, so you can say that "Einsteinian relativity has no aether, and Lorentz theory has an aether, but there is no experiment you can do to measure anything about it."
:If this turns out to be the situation, you might say something like "both theories are equivalent, so this doesn't make relativity wrong; it just makes Lorentz theory just as good." And remember, you are rebutting claims that relativity is wrong, not that there are no other equivalent theories.
:As far as the question of whether scientists prefer relativity for reasons of faith, my guess would be that relativity is simpler, because it doesn't postulate the existence of something that is completely unnecessary. I have no idea about people's reasons beyond that. My guess is that it's Occam's razor. I've never met anyone who embraces the Lorentz theory, and can't find an explanation of it in any of my textbooks or encyclopedias.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:37, 31 January 2012 (EST)

== Removal of "talk-page-like" material ==

I have taken the liberty of moving two comments, made and signed by Andy Schlafly, from the essay page itself to this talk page. It was my intent, when creating the page, that it be kept "professional" and "scientific" and "dispassionate". (Complete with the use of the editorial "we".) This means that back-and-forth arguing, and signed comments in particular, should be here on this talk page, and that disputes on the actual essay page be carried out in a dispassionate-sounding manner.

My actual vision, since it was inevitable that arguments would occur, was that, to use a military metaphor, the two sides lob shells at each other from behind the ramparts of their respective fortresses, rather than coming over for hand-to-hand combat. :-) That is, issues with this rebuttal page would be made by tightening up the arguments on the counterexamples page, would might lead to tightening up the arguments on the rebuttal page, and so on.

These comments were removed and folded into the narrative:

:(1) "This is because the experimental capability to do so doesn't exist." - if that were true, then [why] were the costly experiments done if relativists were going to ignore the negative results?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:(2) So? That wouldn't change the fact that this is a counterexample to Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:This is a bit odd. CP has an essay, largely written by Aschlafly, entitled "Counterexamples to Relativity." Presumably he states his best affirmative case there. CP also has this essay, entitled "Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" largely written by people who disagree with the first essay. So, in 2012, Aschlafly adds signed comments to the rebuttal page, agreed to stop and his signed comments were moved to this page. Now, in 2014, Aschlafly again leaves signed comments in the essay saying that he disagrees with the rebuttals as a matter of mathematical truth.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity&diff=prev&oldid=1072800][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity&diff=prev&oldid=1072803] The math behind both quantum mechanics and relativity is very difficult and subject to interpretation. It is not as clear as 2+2=4. I would suggest that Aschlafly make the original essay as clear and compelling as possible and that SamHB make the rebuttal essay as clear and compelling as possible, and that we trust the readers to understand that the authors disagree with each other without adding comments to the individual essay points repeating the fact of disagreement. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:22, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== Aristotle and Motion ==

[http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics4.htm#8 In Book 4, Chapter 8 of Physics], Aristotle taught that "We see that bodies which have a greater impulse either of weight or of lightness, if they are alike in other respects, move faster over an equal space, and in the ratio which their magnitudes bear to each other. Therefore they will also move through the void with this ratio of speed." [[User:MelH|MelH]] 03:01, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

:This seems to refer to the conservation of momentum of the type which occurs for example when a body collides with a stationary body. So that since ''mv''1i + 0 = ''mv''1f + ''mv''2f therefore ''mv''1i - ''mv''1f = ''mv''2f. The ''mv''1i - ''mv''1f is the impulse ''J''. So impulse ''J'' is equal to ''mv''2f, and bodies that are alike (the condition supposed by Aristotle) have the same ''m'' mass, so that ''J'' x constant (1/''m'') = ''v''2f. Therefore the ratio of ''J'' to ''v''2f is a constant (which incidentally is none other than ''m''), so ''v''2f does increase (move faster) in proportion to impulse ''J'' by the constant ratio (1/''m''). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:16, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::I think you're misinterpreting "impulse" as a more modern sense than Aristotle knew if you read this as about elastic collision. In any case, this section has been cited as the teaching, which Galileo sought to disprove at the Leaning Tower, that objects fell at a rate proportional to their mass. This is even mentioned in the [[Aristotle]] article here, so if you wish to argue otherwise you should raise the issue there. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 16:40, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
:::Do you suppose that you could have cited the wrong section? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::::I don't believe so. In this chapter, Aristotle is arguing against the "void," a concept similar to the vacuum. He correctly notes that the medium through which a body falls affects the rate of fall by resisting its motion. He incorrectly notes that the mass also affects the rate. He concludes that in no medium (the void) an object will fall infinitely fast. This absurd conclusion proves the impossibility of the void. The "impulse" of weight is what we would call gravity, but in his physics it was a function of that weight. If you read the whole chapter, the centrality of a falling object's velocity being determined by its mass is quite clear. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 17:54, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
:::But the "absurd conclusion" isn't relevant to anything we are discussing, and your use of it only serves to suggest his observation of the mass affecting the rate is somehow ''as'' absurd as infinitely fast decline!! Is that what you're trying to do? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
::::The "absurd conclusion" was the way Aristotle proved that there was no void. It's his application of logic, not mine. He shows that (because of the fact that we are discussing -- to wit -- mass has an innate character to fall (at a speed in proportion to itself) ) that the removal of all resistance due to medium results in an infinite rate of fall. He compares this with division by zero. Because infinite speed is impossible, he feels he as proven that there must always be a medium to resist falling bodies. He is arguing reductio ad absurdum. It is not me making an editorial comment! [[User:MelH|MelH]] 00:44, 19 October 2014 (EDT)
:::And Aristotle's conception of gravity isn't the same as ours, yet we are to conclude he shared our conception of differentiating mass from weight?! And using this alleged conception of mass in various propositions is to you not only central, but its centralness is clear to you?! And clear to you to a nuanced degree?! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
:Perhaps I came across as disrespecting one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, for which I apologize. The intention of that whole section was to give examples of "accepted wisdom" being overthrown later by observation and experiment, and the gravity business, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, is a well known example. Perhaps a more nuanced treatment of Aristotle's role in this is called for.
:I do have a couple of web references that suggest a link between Aristotle and some kind of notion that heavier/denser objects fall faster. It may be a (wrong) conclusion that other people drew from what Aristotle said. In any case, I don't have time to work on that just now. Maybe this weekend.
:This has been the most interesting thing to happen at Conservapedia in a couple of years. Much better than the "atheism and applesauce" series. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:40, 15 October 2014 (EDT)

::Perhaps it isn't right to blame Aristotle specifically for this—the point of the item was to show that what is "accepted wisdom" in one era is debunked in another. But one can see how Aristotle got connected with this notion in public discourse. In [http://books.google.com/books?id=Vhx--jfFN8IC&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false this] we have
:::"'Bodies having a greater degree of heaviness or lightness but in all other respects having the same shape, traverse an equal space more rapidly in the same proportion as the quantities mentioned.' Thus, according to Aristotle, the velocity of a falling body is proportional to its weight."
::And in [http://science.jrank.org/pages/3129/Gravity-Gravitation-history-gravity.html this] we have
:::"This was one of the earliest explanations of gravity: that it was the natural tendency for the heavier elements, earth and water, to return to their proper positions near the center of the Universe. Aristotle's theory was for centuries taken as implying [Note: just implying--SHB] that objects with different weights should fall at different speeds; that is, a heavier object should fall faster because it contains more of the centertrending elements, earth and water."

Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-10-19T04:44:40Z

MelH: /* Aristotle and Motion */

== #2 ==

Greetings! I'm new here and point #2 prompted me to make my first edit and added a paragraph thereto. It turns out that the radius of Moon's orbit is in fact increasing, that this has been predicted mathematically in the late 19th century and confirmed by measurement in the 20th, and that this is due to tidal mechanics. In short: it's real, it's definitely not anomalous, and I don't recall anything about either GR or SR being concerned specifically with tidal mechanics. And yes, I do tend to favor long sentences. Cheers! [[User:Mbc|Mbc]] 02:22, 20 August 2012 (EDT)
== #5 ==
Quantum mechanics contradicts and disproves relativity. It's no consolation that relativity is approximately true at greater distances. Relativity is a mathematical theory that does not permit any exceptions. It would be like saying that 2 times 2 is usually 4. If 2 times 2 is ever not equal to 4, then arithmetic falls apart.--Andy Schlafly 23:27, 5 January 2014 (EST)
:Mathematics at times reaches limits. For example, in the function f(x) = 1/x as x approaches 0, f(0) is undefined and we have never seen that value. The same thing is true when applying quantum mechanics near a black hole. We have never visited near a black hole to gather data, and what happens at the black hole is undefined. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:31, 7 January 2014 (EST)
== #6 ==
That is like saying that "2+2" is usually 4. See my response to a similar point above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 5 January 2014 (EST)
:The counterexample here depends on accuracy of measurement. As we gather more and better data, the theory to explain the data will evolve and improve. Again, "2+2" is usually 4, but if f(x) = 1/(x-4), what is f(2+2)? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:44, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== #10 ==

You said that "Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance with regard to the direction of the force." I might be making a mistake, but shouldn't you be a little careful about this? If you rotate the frame, it's just fine as an inertial frame. But obviously, the force will have a different direction. But when you apply it to the two frames at hand, there is no rotation--just translation so the force has the same direction. (Also, does the other stuff I added look good?) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:Yes, that was a bit ambiguous - I've tidied it up. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:39, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== #36 ==

My edit to #36, (Lorentz aether theory), as a footnote on the counterexamples page itself, has been reverted on the grounds of being incoherent. Can someone help out? Is it equivalent to SR in all cases? Is it equivalent to GR in all cases? Why was it abandoned? Was it for reasons of religious faith? [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 19:29, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:First, being cautious in this matter is good. Before putting something on a public wiki, you should check your facts carefully.
:An important thing is to do your homework. Look around at the histories of pages, and the other contributions of people who write things. In this case, that's Roger Schlafly. What you will find is that he accepts relativity, but really doesn't like giving Einstein any credit for it. I don't know why. So, most likely, he wants the Lorentz theory to be considered the "authentic" theory, rather than Einsteinian relativity. Two things to do: Look at [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aether_%28science%29]] to get your bearings, and look at who wrote #36. It wasn't Roger.
:My understanding of the Lorentz theory is that it is equivalent to SR, but needs some fussing to get it equivalent to GR. Once that is done, it seems that the appropriately fussed Lorentz theory is equivalent, so you can say that "Einsteinian relativity has no aether, and Lorentz theory has an aether, but there is no experiment you can do to measure anything about it."
:If this turns out to be the situation, you might say something like "both theories are equivalent, so this doesn't make relativity wrong; it just makes Lorentz theory just as good." And remember, you are rebutting claims that relativity is wrong, not that there are no other equivalent theories.
:As far as the question of whether scientists prefer relativity for reasons of faith, my guess would be that relativity is simpler, because it doesn't postulate the existence of something that is completely unnecessary. I have no idea about people's reasons beyond that. My guess is that it's Occam's razor. I've never met anyone who embraces the Lorentz theory, and can't find an explanation of it in any of my textbooks or encyclopedias.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:37, 31 January 2012 (EST)

== Removal of "talk-page-like" material ==

I have taken the liberty of moving two comments, made and signed by Andy Schlafly, from the essay page itself to this talk page. It was my intent, when creating the page, that it be kept "professional" and "scientific" and "dispassionate". (Complete with the use of the editorial "we".) This means that back-and-forth arguing, and signed comments in particular, should be here on this talk page, and that disputes on the actual essay page be carried out in a dispassionate-sounding manner.

My actual vision, since it was inevitable that arguments would occur, was that, to use a military metaphor, the two sides lob shells at each other from behind the ramparts of their respective fortresses, rather than coming over for hand-to-hand combat. :-) That is, issues with this rebuttal page would be made by tightening up the arguments on the counterexamples page, would might lead to tightening up the arguments on the rebuttal page, and so on.

These comments were removed and folded into the narrative:

:(1) "This is because the experimental capability to do so doesn't exist." - if that were true, then [why] were the costly experiments done if relativists were going to ignore the negative results?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)

:(2) So? That wouldn't change the fact that this is a counterexample to Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:This is a bit odd. CP has an essay, largely written by Aschlafly, entitled "Counterexamples to Relativity." Presumably he states his best affirmative case there. CP also has this essay, entitled "Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" largely written by people who disagree with the first essay. So, in 2012, Aschlafly adds signed comments to the rebuttal page, agreed to stop and his signed comments were moved to this page. Now, in 2014, Aschlafly again leaves signed comments in the essay saying that he disagrees with the rebuttals as a matter of mathematical truth.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity&diff=prev&oldid=1072800][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity&diff=prev&oldid=1072803] The math behind both quantum mechanics and relativity is very difficult and subject to interpretation. It is not as clear as 2+2=4. I would suggest that Aschlafly make the original essay as clear and compelling as possible and that SamHB make the rebuttal essay as clear and compelling as possible, and that we trust the readers to understand that the authors disagree with each other without adding comments to the individual essay points repeating the fact of disagreement. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:22, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== Aristotle and Motion ==

[http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics4.htm#8 In Book 4, Chapter 8 of Physics], Aristotle taught that "We see that bodies which have a greater impulse either of weight or of lightness, if they are alike in other respects, move faster over an equal space, and in the ratio which their magnitudes bear to each other. Therefore they will also move through the void with this ratio of speed." [[User:MelH|MelH]] 03:01, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

:This seems to refer to the conservation of momentum of the type which occurs for example when a body collides with a stationary body. So that since ''mv''1i + 0 = ''mv''1f + ''mv''2f therefore ''mv''1i - ''mv''1f = ''mv''2f. The ''mv''1i - ''mv''1f is the impulse ''J''. So impulse ''J'' is equal to ''mv''2f, and bodies that are alike (the condition supposed by Aristotle) have the same ''m'' mass, so that ''J'' x constant (1/''m'') = ''v''2f. Therefore the ratio of ''J'' to ''v''2f is a constant (which incidentally is none other than ''m''), so ''v''2f does increase (move faster) in proportion to impulse ''J'' by the constant ratio (1/''m''). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:16, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::I think you're misinterpreting "impulse" as a more modern sense than Aristotle knew if you read this as about elastic collision. In any case, this section has been cited as the teaching, which Galileo sought to disprove at the Leaning Tower, that objects fell at a rate proportional to their mass. This is even mentioned in the [[Aristotle]] article here, so if you wish to argue otherwise you should raise the issue there. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 16:40, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
:::Do you suppose that you could have cited the wrong section? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::::I don't believe so. In this chapter, Aristotle is arguing against the "void," a concept similar to the vacuum. He correctly notes that the medium through which a body falls affects the rate of fall by resisting its motion. He incorrectly notes that the mass also affects the rate. He concludes that in no medium (the void) an object will fall infinitely fast. This absurd conclusion proves the impossibility of the void. The "impulse" of weight is what we would call gravity, but in his physics it was a function of that weight. If you read the whole chapter, the centrality of a falling object's velocity being determined by its mass is quite clear. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 17:54, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
:::But the "absurd conclusion" isn't relevant to anything we are discussing, and your use of it only serves to suggest his observation of the mass affecting the rate is somehow ''as'' absurd as infinitely fast decline!! Is that what you're trying to do? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
::::The "absurd conclusion" was the way Aristotle proved that there was no void. It's his application of logic, not mine. He shows that (because of the fact that we are discussing -- to wit -- mass has an innate character to fall (at a speed in proportion to itself) that the removal of all resistance due to medium results in an infinite rate of fall. He compares this with division by zero. Because infinite speed is impossible, he feels he as proven that there must always be a medium to resist falling bodies. He is arguing reductio ad absurdum. It is not me making an editorial comment! [[User:MelH|MelH]] 00:44, 19 October 2014 (EDT)
:::And Aristotle's conception of gravity isn't the same as ours, yet we are to conclude he shared our conception of differentiating mass from weight?! And using this alleged conception of mass in various propositions is to you not only central, but its centralness is clear to you?! And clear to you to a nuanced degree?! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
:Perhaps I came across as disrespecting one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, for which I apologize. The intention of that whole section was to give examples of "accepted wisdom" being overthrown later by observation and experiment, and the gravity business, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, is a well known example. Perhaps a more nuanced treatment of Aristotle's role in this is called for.
:I do have a couple of web references that suggest a link between Aristotle and some kind of notion that heavier/denser objects fall faster. It may be a (wrong) conclusion that other people drew from what Aristotle said. In any case, I don't have time to work on that just now. Maybe this weekend.
:This has been the most interesting thing to happen at Conservapedia in a couple of years. Much better than the "atheism and applesauce" series. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:40, 15 October 2014 (EDT)

::Perhaps it isn't right to blame Aristotle specifically for this—the point of the item was to show that what is "accepted wisdom" in one era is debunked in another. But one can see how Aristotle got connected with this notion in public discourse. In [http://books.google.com/books?id=Vhx--jfFN8IC&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false this] we have
:::"'Bodies having a greater degree of heaviness or lightness but in all other respects having the same shape, traverse an equal space more rapidly in the same proportion as the quantities mentioned.' Thus, according to Aristotle, the velocity of a falling body is proportional to its weight."
::And in [http://science.jrank.org/pages/3129/Gravity-Gravitation-history-gravity.html this] we have
:::"This was one of the earliest explanations of gravity: that it was the natural tendency for the heavier elements, earth and water, to return to their proper positions near the center of the Universe. Aristotle's theory was for centuries taken as implying [Note: just implying--SHB] that objects with different weights should fall at different speeds; that is, a heavier object should fall faster because it contains more of the centertrending elements, earth and water."

Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-10-14T21:54:13Z

MelH: /* Aristotle and Motion */

Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-10-14T20:40:59Z

MelH: /* Aristotle and Motion */

Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-10-14T20:40:18Z

MelH: /* Aristotle and Motion */

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-10-14T07:03:51Z

MelH:

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute. We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.

#''Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more black holes than are observed''.
#:The cited article says absolutely nothing about the ''number'' of black holes, modeled or observed. It is about a discrepancy between computer models predicting the ''masses'' of black holes at the centers of galaxies and the observed masses. The article suggests a heretofore-unmodeled mechanism whereby galaxy evolution would cause less mass to go into the black holes. The article in no way suggests that black holes don't exist.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth, causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavior, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galilean, Newtonian and Einsteinian, are quite safe for now.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Quantum entanglement near the event horizon of a black hole ....''
#:It is well known that quantum gravity (that is, the "Theory of Everything") is an unsolved problem, and it is the subject of much discussion in the physics community. The whole topic of string theory, for example, revolves around this. Among the places where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics collide most notoriously is within the Planck length of a black hole's event horizon. Among the issues involved is the notion of "quantum loss of information", that was the subject of a famous bet among Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, and John Preskill. (Hawking and Thorne lost.) Basically, physicists do not know just what happens within quantum-mechanical distances (the Planck length) of a black hole. But no one doubts the behavior of black holes at reasonable distances, or, for that matter, General Relativity at reasonable distances.
#''The speed of light in a vacuum is slower than expected''
#:
#:It is unfortunate that, whenever a sensational-headline-hungry writer writes anything relating to the propagation of light, they are tempted to scream something along the lines of "Einstein proved wrong." Such sensationalist headlines can be seen in both the popular press and here at Conservapedia.
#:
#:But relativity never said anything about vacuum polarization.
#:
#:The factor "c" appearing in equations of relativity (E=mc^2, the Lorentz factor, etc.) is the calibration constant for space vs. time. While it was perceived as the "speed of light" back in 1905, that depended on the classical theory of light, from Faraday, Maxwell, et. al., at that time. Under the classical theory, Maxwell's equations were considered to be '''exactly''' correct, and light was considered to travel at '''exactly''' the speed indicated by those equations, which speed is denoted "c". The speed "c" would be better described as "that speed that all observers, even those in relative motion, will consider to be the same." The experimental basis for relativity (Michelson-Morley experiment) was that light obeyed that property. That, plus the fact that "c" appears in Maxwell's equations in a way that makes it independent of an observer's state of motion, made it clear that "c" was in fact the speed of light. But that depended on the belief that Maxwell's equations were exactly correct. But that was before Quantum Mechanics and gauge interactions. Under Quantum Mechanics, the propagation of light is determined by the behavior of photons, not by Maxwell's field equations. Of course the two results are almost identical, as is required by the Correspondence Principle. But, under the modern "Standard Model" of Quantum Electrodynamics, photons can interact with the vacuum, due to "vacuum polarization", leading to extremely tiny higher-order corrections to the equations governing the behavior of photons. This can cause photons to travel at a speed slower than "c".
#:
#:Now the situation is made more complex by the fact that models of supernova behavior indicate that the light is emitted after the neutrinos, because the neutrinos are emitted at the instant of the core collapse, and the light must wait until the effect of the collapse reaches the surface. After taking that into account, the cited article says that the extra delay for supernova SN1987A was 4.7 hours. That discrepancy is only 53 parts per trillion, and hence can only be observed in light from very distant supernovas.
#:
#:Calculating the speed of the neutrinos is interesting, because the observation is that light traveled '''slower''' than the neutrinos, even though neutrinos have nonzero mass. Since neutrinos do not participate in the electromagnetic interaction, they are not subject to the same vacuum polarization as photons. Their retardation comes only from their mass and the normal equations of relativity.
#:
#:Taking the mass of an electron neutrino as 0.25 eV (using the usual E=mc^2 formula that all scientists use for this), a neutrino would have to have a kinetic energy of about 0.025 MeV to experience a retardation of 53 parts per trillion. Since the energy of astronomical neutrinos is generally believed to be in the range of 0.5 to 20 MeV (it's really hard to measure) the expected retardation of the neutrinos from SN1987A is much '''less''' than that of the light.
#:
#:It's interesting that the issue of whether neutrinos travel faster than light actually '''did''' come up in another round sensationalist headline-grabbing articles, from an experiment at Gran Sasso, in the popular press and here at Conservapedia. The first headline was that neutrinos traveled '''faster''' than light, a claim retracted after a cable was fixed, but then reported here that someone (erroneously) had said they had traveled at '''exactly the same speed''' as light, which also violates relativity because neutrinos have nonzero mass. In any case, that discrepancy would have been several orders of magnitude too small to measure in the Gran Sasso experiment, and the discrepancy from vacuum polarization several orders of magnitude smaller still.
#''Celestial signals defy Einstein''.
#:It shouldn't be surprising that, when Einstein died nearly 60 years ago, he didn't know ''everything'' that there is to know about spacetime. Newton didn't know everything there is to know about calculus (Hilbert spaces) or classical mechanics (Lissajous orbits), and Bohr and Schrödinger didn't know everything there is to know about Quantum mechanics (entanglement). What Einstein knew, at the time, about spacetime was how to give a precisely relativistically correct formula for how matter and energy (and momentum and stress) give curvature to spacetime, which in turn gives rise to gravity. These equations have been confirmed, with great accuracy, repeatedly.
#:
#:Einstein's equations are known to work for "ordinary" interactions at the planetary and galactic level, but don't work at the quantum level, and may not be fully correct at the deep cosmic level. The cited article says "Every object there is, from a planet orbiting the sun to a rocket coasting to the moon or a pencil dropped carelessly on the floor, follows its [spacetime's] imperceptible contours." This is a confirmation of what Einstein said. The article says that there may be more subtlety to spacetime than was previously known. Of course this has been hinted at for some time with recent developments in cosmology. "Breaking relativity" is an unfortunate choice of subtitle.
#''Relativity breaks down at high energies''.
#:This is interesting. We look forward to seeing whether this plays out the same way that the supraluminal neutrinos did. Until then, note that the discrepancy, 33 picoradians, is such that, if you were to shine a laser beam at the Sun, with that amount of angular error, it would miss its target by about 5 meters. We hope the author will explain how he measured an angle that precisely.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>. The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#:::A "counter-rebuttal" has been made: ''The politicized rush to rehabilitate the Theory of Relativity was far from convincing, and the "resolution" was a clear statement that is flatly contrary to the Theory''. Just what statement is being referred to as the "resolution" is not clear, but our best guess is that it is the statement by Sandro Centro, quoted by Jason Palmer in the cited BBC article. As noted above, that statement is in error by about 15 orders of magnitude less than the resolution of the measurement. None of the assertions of relativity denies that anyone could ever make a statement that is not precisely correct.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct. Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science. The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys. The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag. The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has neen reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>. The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''observations don't match predictions'' and cosmic causality.
#:The fact that "observations don't match predictions" has shown up many times in the history of science. That is, the accepted wisdom of the day was found to be false, leading to improved theories:
#:*There were once assumed, by Aristotle and many others, to be four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. Subsequent experimental investigation, by numerous people, replaced that theory.
#:*The Aristotelian notion of gravity, that objects fall at a speed proportional to their mass, was found to be contrary to experimental evidence, and was replaced by Galilean/Newtonian mechanics.
#:*The geocentrism of Ptolemy lasted a long time until it was found to be contrary to experimental evidence, and was replaced by the Heliocentric theory of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton.
#:*The "phlogiston theory" of combustion was accepted until it proved to be contrary to experimental evidence, and was replaced by the modern oxidation theory by Antoine Lavoisier.
#:*The "caloric theory" supposed that heat was a material substance called "caloric", and that that substance was conserved. It took a long time for Joule and others to develop the modern "kinetic theory" as a replacement.
#:
#:The current "counterexample" is about the "horizon problem", a problem of cosmology which has been known for a few decades. Under the kind of expansion of the universe that non-quantum-mechanics would require, there are places in the universe that are not causally connected and yet have nearly the same temperature. The classical expansion of the universe would have magnified early nonuniformities by about 50 orders of magnitude, an impossible situation. The currently accepted theory dealing with this problem is "inflation". Not all scientists accept this, but most do; other explanations are more exotic than most scientists are willing to accept.
#:
#:An interesting thing about inflation is that it was formulated to solve a different problem—the dominance of matter over antimatter. It was found to address the flatness problem as well. When a theory explains phenomena other than what it was intended for, that of course lends it additional credence.
#:
#:Whether cosmic inflation is implausible is not for us to say. The existence of subatomic particles was once considered implausible.
#:
#:The cited National Geographic article was in fact not about the problem of temperature uniformity, but about various hypotheses, much less widely accepted than inflation, about alternate universes, and whether black hole singularities might connect them. The issue is not about the existence of black holes, but about the connectedness of their singularities. This is really fascinating stuff. The book ''The Hidden Reality'', by Brian Greene, is a fascinating account of these issues. We highly recommend it.
:::There is no "Aristotelian notion of gravity". He had notions of "natural motion". And where did he say that "objects fall at a speed proportional to their mass"? According to you, he must have thought that hot air had negative mass! And when did he use the term "proportional" in that sense? To (falsely) frame him as the beginning of a series of wrong theories is to slight one of the most profound thinkers in the history of the world! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:48, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
::::FYI, I placed a citation in the talk page. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 03:03, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:Spacetime has very definite curvature near any massive object—this is what makes gravity work. The '''global''' curvature of spacetime is an altogether different issue. Whether the average global curvature is zero has consequences for cosmological theories, but it has essentially no effect on the curvature that keeps the Earth in its orbit. If it did have an effect, the issue would have been settled long ago.
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical) GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 17 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones. Mathematicians define a 4-dimensional vector space as having two operators: addition and scalar multiplication. There is also the identity vector (0,0,0,0). So, to the extent that one asks what vector can be added to (0,0,0,t) to produce (0,0,0,0), the answer is (0,0,0,-t), but that has nothing to do with relativity.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#''General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected.''
#:This one is utterly absurd. The calculation of the gravity of the Sun and Moon in producing tides has been known for hundreds of years, explained by Newtonian gravity. The effect of relativity on this is microscopic.
#:
#:The cited article is about the many things affecting the gross behavior of tides. Keep in mind that the factors affecting the tides involve a lot of hard-to-precisely-quantify things such as wind and ocean currents, and the melting of glaciers. As an example of how imprecise things are, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans differ in mean height by about 8 inches at the Panama Canal, and the tides are about 20 feet on the Pacific side and 1 foot on the Atlantic side. As another example, tides in the Bay of Fundy are as high as 53 feet. Tides are not a simple calculation from Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics. The difference between Newtonian gravitation and Einsteinian gravitation is utterly insignificant in comparison to these gross effects.
#''The supermassive black hole within the Andromeda galaxy puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.''
#:This item is about unexpected behavior of the supermassive black holes at the centers of many galaxies. Black holes are a prediction of relativity. The fact that people are still learning new things about them is hardly surprising.
#:
#:The cited article never mentions relativity or the possibility that relativity is wrong. In fact, the entire discussion is in the context of black holes. The second study was about a black hole at the center of a galaxy apparently wandering out of place. The hypothesis is that a merger of two galaxies was involved, and "the theoretical prediction is that when two black holes merge, the newly combined black hole receives a 'kick' due to the emission of gravitational waves ..." Gravitational waves are, of course, a specific prediction of general relativity.
#''Scientists are unable to explain a June 2012 cluster of earthquakes in Ireland.''
#:This one is even more absurd than the one above about tides. We cannot fathom why anyone would think earthquakes are a counterexample to relativity.
#''Apparently, the equations of General Relativity do not apply to the motions of extra-solar planets.''
#:This refers to a recently discovered planetary system in which another star is closer than had previously been seen in such a system. Systems involving two stars and a planet constitute the "three body problem", which has never been solved analytically. But if only one of the objects is massive, such as the Sun, the system can be stable for all practical purposes, which is why the solar system is effectively stable even though it is a many-body problem. But two stars make the system much more problematical. In the past, such systems have had the other star far enough away that it has essentially no effect. The Gamma Cephei system is different, and scientists are eager to analyze it in detail. They are frustrated in this by the extremely scant data about the planet's orbit, since that information has to be gleaned from tiny spectroscopic shifts (in only one dimension!) of the two stars.
#:
#:The effect of Relativity on this is, of course, the precession of the "perihelion" due to the effects of General Relativity. From the information that has been gathered, the precession should be about 1.14 arcseconds per Earth century, or about 1/37th that of Mercury. The precession of Mercury was established with accurate visual observations. Measuring something 1/37th as large, from the Doppler shift in spectroscopic measurements, is utterly beyond current technology. Other than that, there is no reason to consider relativity. Classical mechanics will do just fine.
#''General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect.''
#:A quick Google search will show that there is no "concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon". Tom van Flandern (no darling of those who accept relativity; he has been cited at Conservapedia in the "Lack of evidence for Relativity" section) explains the phenomenon in his 2003 paper [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v67/i2/e022002 Allais gravity and pendulum effects during solar eclipses explained]: "Here we show that an unusual phenomenon that occurs only during solar eclipses, rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly previously reported in these pages."
#:The fact that "attempts to duplicate the result have been reported as failures" is certainly consistent with an effort to suppress knowledge, but it's also consistent with the effect not existing.
#''The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons...''
#:This is wrong on many levels. If there were exactly as many quantum-mechanical states (eigenfunctions) as there are particles, then, indeed, a fermion particle could only go to another state if the particle already in that state moved. But there are many more available states than there are particles.
#:
#:The cited article was a lecture by Brian Cox, a "popularizer" of physics, and the comments on the web page take him to task over a great many points, including a confusion between "quantum states" and "energy states", and what quantum-mechanical interconnectedness really means. People would be well advised to read those comments, as well as the analysis by Sean Carroll [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/02/23/everything-is-connected/#.UdzP9KwWSSo here], which points out the many flaws in Brian Cox's reasoning.
#:
#:In any case, this is about quantum mechanics, not relativity.
#''The recent findings of gravitational waves are actually just dust.''
#:This is about the observations by the "BICEP2" telescope early in 2014. The claim was that analysis of the polarization of the [[Cosmic microwave background]] (CMB) would show that the CMB had been influenced by gravitational waves in the first fraction of a second after the big bang. That is, if noise from interstellar dust grains didn't confound the measurements. It is now believed that the dust grain noise is too high to make this a reliable measurement.
#:Please read the cited article. It indicates that, based on observations by the Planck satellite, it should be possible to make a cleaner observation. The balloon-borne "Spider" telescope is slated to be launched later this year, and it might be successful.
#:Taking the failure of the BICEP2 observations as a counterexample to relativity is like saying "I thought of a new and clever proof of the existence of God last week, but unfortunately there was a flaw in my logic, so therefore God doesn't exist."
#:In any case, another indirect observation of gravitational waves has already been made, in the Hulse-Taylor observations of binary pulsar [[PSR B1913 16]] in the 1990's.

Unless someone can come up with a sensible example, we will not be posting further rebuttals. The recent ones have been hideously pointless, and not worth replying to. Many of them have cited articles that have ''nothing to do with relativity''. Tides, and earthquakes, do not disprove relativity. It's possible that, because of the rather famous nature of the "counterexamples" page (it is cited around the world, and has nearly 2 million web views), people are simply putting in parody, or trolling, or humor, or whatever, in an attempt to see their work on a world-famous page.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

2013-03-03T16:42:19Z

MelH: Typo

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the LORD, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them?
|After the death of Joshua, the Sons of Israel asked the LORD "Who among us should be first to go and fight the Canaanites?"
|
|-
|2
|And the LORD said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand.
|The LORD answered, "The men of Judah will go, for this I will give them their land."
|
|-
|3
|And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him.
|The men of Judah sought out the Simeonites for help "Brothers, if you help us fight for the land God has given us, we will help fight for your land." The men of Simeon agreed to join the men of Judah.
|
|-
|4
|And Judah went up; and the LORD delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men.
|When the men of Judah attacked, the LORD handed them an overwhelming victory over the Canaanites and the Perizzites. The men of Judah killed 10,000 men in the city of Bezek alone.
|
|-
|5
|And they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek: and they fought against him, and they slew the Canaanites and the Perizzites.
|After finishing off the last of the Canaanites and Perizzites in Bezek, the men of Judah tracked down the mayor of Bezek and fought with him.
|
|-
|6
|But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes.
|The mayor of Bezek tried to flee, but the men of Judah caught up with him and cut off his thumbs and big toes as punishment.
|
|-
|7
|And Adoni-bezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.
|The mayor of Bezek cried "I have cut off the tumbs and toes of 70 kings; and made them eat the scraps that fell from my dinner table. Now God has repaid me for what I have done!" The men of Judah took him to Jerusalem with them, where he later died.
|
|-
|8
|Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.
|Arriving in Jerusalem, the Sons of Judah attacked and conquered the city. They killed its residents with their swords and set fire to their buildings.
|
|-
|9
|And afterward the children of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites, that dwelt in the mountain, and in the south, and in the valley.
|Afterword the Sons of Judah went out and fought against the Canaanites that lived in the hills and valleys surrounding the city of Jerusalem.
|
|-
|10
|And Judah went against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron: (now the name of Hebron before was Kirjath-arba:) and they slew Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai.
|They also fought the Canaanites that lived in the city of Hebron (once known as Kirijath Arba). There they defeated the giants Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai.
|Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai were male descendants of Anak (a nephilim). See Num 13:22
|-
|11
|And from thence he went against the inhabitants of Debir: and the name of Debir before was Kirjath-sepher:
|From Hebron, the men of Judah marched upon the city of Debir; which was known as Kirjath Sepher in those days.
|
|-
|12
|And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife.
|Before their attack, they met a man named Caleb. Caleb made the men an offer "I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to whoever conquers the city of Kijath Sepher".
|
|-
|13
|And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife.
|In then end, it was Caleb's nephew Othniel, son of Kenaz, that conquered the city. So Caleb gave him Acsah to take as his wife.
|
|-
|14
|And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou?
|One day Acsah sought Othniel's permission to ask her father for some land. She rode to Caleb's house, and after getting off of her donkey, her father asked "What can I help you with?"
|
|-
|15
|And she said unto him, Give me a blessing: for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water. And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the nether springs.
|Acsah spoke "I need a favor father. The land you have given me is dry desert. I would also like springs of water."
So Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs that were in that region.
|
|-
|16
|And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.
|The descendants of Moses' father-in-law were known as the Kenite. The Kenites left the city of Jericho, along with the Sons of Judah, to go live among the people of Judah in the deserts south of Arad.
|
|-
|17
|And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.
|The Sons of Judah and Simeon knew there were Canaanites living in the city of Zephath, so they killed them all and completely annihilated the city. They then renamed the city Hormah.
|Hormah can mean "completely destroyed","devoted to destruction", or "given unto God".
|-
|18
|Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.
|The Sons of Judah would go on to conquer the cities of Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, along with all of the surrounding towns and villages.
|
|-
|19
|And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
|The LORD was with the men of Judah as they drove out the people living in the mountains. Yet, they could not drive out the residents of the valley because they made use of chariots fitted with iron.
|
|-
|20
|And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.
|The tribe of Judah gave the city of Hebron to the descendants of Caleb, just as Moses had promised. After taking control of the city, they drove out the descendants of Anak.
|
|-
|21
|And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.
|The Sons of Benjamin were unable to drive out the Jebusites that lived in Jerusalem. So the Jebusites live among the tribe of Benjamin in Jeruslem even to this day.
|
|-
|22
|And the house of Joseph, they also went up against Bethel: and the LORD was with them.
|With God's blessing, the descendants of Joseph went into battle against the city of Bethel.
|
|-
|23
|And the house of Joseph sent to descry Bethel. (Now the name of the city before was Luz.)
|They sent spies to gather intelligence pertaining to Bethel, which was called Luz in those days.
|
|-
|24
|And the spies saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, Shew us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city, and we will shew thee mercy.
|The spies detained a man leaving the city and struck a bargain with him: "Show us a secret way into the city, and no harm will come to you or your family".
|
|-
|25
|And when he shewed them the entrance into the city, they smote the city with the edge of the sword; but they let go the man and all his family.
|The man showed them the secret entrance into the city. The tribe of Joseph destroyed the city, but kept their word to the man and let him and his family go free.
|
|-
|26
|And the man went into the land of the Hittites, and built a city, and called the name thereof Luz: which is the name thereof unto this day.
|Upon gaining his freedom, the man traveled to the land of Hittites where he founded a new city. He named the city Luz, which bear that name to this day.
|
|-
|27
|Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.
|
|
|-
|28
|And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out.
|
|
|-
|29
|Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them.
|
|
|-
|30
|Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries.
|
|
|-
|31
|Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob:
|
|
|-
|32
|But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out.
|
|
|-
|33
|Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became tributaries unto them.
|
|
|-
|34
|And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley:
|
|
|-
|35
|But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries.
|
|
|-
|36
|And the coast of the Amorites was from the going up to Akrabbim, from the rock, and upward.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.
|
|
|-
|2
|And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?
|
|
|-
|3
|Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.
|
|
|-
|4
|And it came to pass, when the angel of the LORD spake these words unto all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voice, and wept.
|
|
|-
|5
|And they called the name of that place Bochim: and they sacrificed there unto the LORD.
|
|
|-
|6
|And when Joshua had let the people go, the children of Israel went every man unto his inheritance to possess the land.
|
|
|-
|7
|And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel.
|
|
|-
|8
|And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died, being an hundred and ten years old.
|
|
|-
|9
|And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-heres, in the mount of Ephraim, on the north side of the hill Gaash.
|
|
|-
|10
|And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.
|
|
|-
|11
|And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:
|
|
|-
|12
|And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger.
|
|
|-
|13
|And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
|
|
|-
|14
|And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.
|
|
|-
|15
|Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.
|
|
|-
|16
|Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.
|
|
|-
|17
|And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.
|
|
|-
|18
|And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.
|
|
|-
|19
|And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.
|
|
|-
|20
|And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and he said, Because that this people hath transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice;
|
|
|-
|21
|I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died:
|
|
|-
|22
|That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not.
|
|
|-
|23
|Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan;
|
|
|-
|2
|Only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof;
|
|
|-
|3
|Namely, five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in mount Lebanon, from mount Baal-hermon unto the entering in of Hamath.
|
|
|-
|4
|And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the LORD, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.
|
|
|-
|5
|And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites:
|
|
|-
|6
|And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.
|
|
|-
|7
|And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgat the LORD their God, and served Baalim and the groves.
|
|
|-
|8
|Therefore the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia: and the children of Israel served Chushan-rishathaim eight years.
|
|
|-
|9
|And when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother.
|
|
|-
|10
|And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushan-rishathaim.
|
|
|-
|11
|And the land had rest forty years. And Othniel the son of Kenaz died.
|
|
|-
|12
|And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD: and the LORD strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done evil in the sight of the LORD.
|
|
|-
|13
|And he gathered unto him the children of Ammon and Amalek, and went and smote Israel, and possessed the city of palm trees.
|
|
|-
|14
|So the children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years.
|
|
|-
|15
|But when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised them up a deliverer, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man lefthanded: and by him the children of Israel sent a present unto Eglon the king of Moab.
|
|
|-
|16
|But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh.
|
|
|-
|17
|And he brought the present unto Eglon king of Moab: and Eglon was a very fat man.
|
|
|-
|18
|And when he had made an end to offer the present, he sent away the people that bare the present.
|
|
|-
|19
|But he himself turned again from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said, I have a secret errand unto thee, O king: who said, Keep silence. And all that stood by him went out from him.
|
|
|-
|20
|And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting in a summer parlour, which he had for himself alone. And Ehud said, I have a message from God unto thee. And he arose out of his seat.
|
|
|-
|21
|And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly:
|
|
|-
|22
|And the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out.
|
|
|-
|23
|Then Ehud went forth through the porch, and shut the doors of the parlour upon him, and locked them.
|
|
|-
|24
|When he was gone out, his servants came; and when they saw that, behold, the doors of the parlour were locked, they said, Surely he covereth his feet in his summer chamber.
|
|
|-
|25
|And they tarried till they were ashamed: and, behold, he opened not the doors of the parlour; therefore they took a key, and opened them: and, behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth.
|
|
|-
|26
|And Ehud escaped while they tarried, and passed beyond the quarries, and escaped unto Seirath.
|
|
|-
|27
|And it came to pass, when he was come, that he blew a trumpet in the mountain of Ephraim, and the children of Israel went down with him from the mount, and he before them.
|
|
|-
|28
|And he said unto them, Follow after me: for the LORD hath delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over.
|
|
|-
|29
|And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valour; and there escaped not a man.
|
|
|-
|30
|So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest fourscore years.
|
|
|-
|31
|And after him was Shamgar the son of Anath, which slew of the Philistines six hundred men with an ox goad: and he also delivered Israel.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, when Ehud was dead.
|
|
|-
|2
|And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles.
|
|
|-
|3
|And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
|
|
|-
|4
|And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
|
|
|-
|5
|And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
|
|
|-
|6
|And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-naphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?
|
|
|-
|7
|And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.
|
|
|-
|8
|And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.
|
|
|-
|9
|And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.
|
|
|-
|10
|And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him.
|
|
|-
|11
|Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.
|
|
|-
|12
|And they shewed Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam was gone up to mount Tabor.
|
|
|-
|13
|And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.
|
|
|-
|14
|And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the LORD hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the LORD gone out before thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.
|
|
|-
|15
|And the LORD discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet.
|
|
|-
|16
|But Barak pursued after the chariots, and after the host, unto Harosheth of the Gentiles: and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword; and there was not a man left.
|
|
|-
|17
|Howbeit Sisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite: for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite.
|
|
|-
|18
|And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle.
|
|
|-
|19
|And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him.
|
|
|-
|20
|Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and inquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No.
|
|
|-
|21
|Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.
|
|
|-
|22
|And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will shew thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples.
|
|
|-
|23
|So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel.
|
|
|-
|24
|And the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day, saying,
|
|
|-
|2
|Praise ye the LORD for the avenging of Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves.
|
|
|-
|3
|Hear, O ye kings; give ear, O ye princes; I, even I, will sing unto the LORD; I will sing praise to the LORD God of Israel.
|
|
|-
|4
|LORD, when thou wentest out of Seir, when thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled, and the heavens dropped, the clouds also dropped water.
|
|
|-
|5
|The mountains melted from before the LORD, even that Sinai from before the LORD God of Israel.
|
|
|-
|6
|In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were unoccupied, and the travellers walked through byways.
|
|
|-
|7
|The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel.
|
|
|-
|8
|They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?
|
|
|-
|9
|My heart is toward the governors of Israel, that offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless ye the LORD.
|
|
|-
|10
|Speak, ye that ride on white asses, ye that sit in judgment, and walk by the way.
|
|
|-
|11
|They that are delivered from the noise of archers in the places of drawing water, there shall they rehearse the righteous acts of the LORD, even the righteous acts toward the inhabitants of his villages in Israel: then shall the people of the LORD go down to the gates.
|
|
|-
|12
|Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam.
|
|
|-
|13
|Then he made him that remaineth have dominion over the nobles among the people: the LORD made me have dominion over the mighty.
|
|
|-
|14
|Out of Ephraim was there a root of them against Amalek; after thee, Benjamin, among thy people; out of Machir came down governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the writer.
|
|
|-
|15
|And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah; even Issachar, and also Barak: he was sent on foot into the valley. For the divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart.
|
|
|-
|16
|Why abodest thou among the sheepfolds, to hear the bleatings of the flocks? For the divisions of Reuben there were great searchings of heart.
|
|
|-
|17
|Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore, and abode in his breaches.
|
|
|-
|18
|Zebulun and Naphtali were a people that jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field.
|
|
|-
|19
|The kings came and fought, then fought the kings of Canaan in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo; they took no gain of money.
|
|
|-
|20
|They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.
|
|
|-
|21
|The river of Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. O my soul, thou hast trodden down strength.
|
|
|-
|22
|Then were the horsehoofs broken by the means of the pransings, the pransings of their mighty ones.
|
|
|-
|23
|Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to the help of the LORD against the mighty.
|
|
|-
|24
|Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.
|
|
|-
|25
|He asked water, and she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish.
|
|
|-
|26
|She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples.
|
|
|-
|27
|At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead.
|
|
|-
|28
|The mother of Sisera looked out at a window, and cried through the lattice, Why is his chariot so long in coming? why tarry the wheels of his chariots?
|
|
|-
|29
|Her wise ladies answered her, yea, she returned answer to herself,
|
|
|-
|30
|Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?
|
|
|-
|31
|So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land had rest forty years.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD: and the LORD delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years.
|
|
|-
|2
|And the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel: and because of the Midianites the children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains, and caves, and strong holds.
|
|
|-
|3
|And so it was, when Israel had sown, that the Midianites came up, and the Amalekites, and the children of the east, even they came up against them;
|
|
|-
|4
|And they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance for Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass.
|
|
|-
|5
|For they came up with their cattle and their tents, and they came as grasshoppers for multitude; for both they and their camels were without number: and they entered into the land to destroy it.
|
|
|-
|6
|And Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites; and the children of Israel cried unto the LORD.
|
|
|-
|7
|And it came to pass, when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD because of the Midianites,
|
|
|-
|8
|That the LORD sent a prophet unto the children of Israel, which said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you forth out of the house of bondage;
|
|
|-
|9
|And I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all that oppressed you, and drave them out from before you, and gave you their land;
|
|
|-
|10
|And I said unto you, I am the LORD your God; fear not the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but ye have not obeyed my voice.
|
|
|-
|11
|And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abi-ezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites.
|
|
|-
|12
|And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
|
|
|-
|13
|And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.
|
|
|-
|14
|And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?
|
|
|-
|15
|And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house.
|
|
|-
|16
|And the LORD said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man.
|
|
|-
|17
|And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, then shew me a sign that thou talkest with me.
|
|
|-
|18
|Depart not hence, I pray thee, until I come unto thee, and bring forth my present, and set it before thee. And he said, I will tarry until thou come again.
|
|
|-
|19
|And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it.
|
|
|-
|20
|And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so.
|
|
|-
|21
|Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight.
|
|
|-
|22
|And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face.
|
|
|-
|23
|And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die.
|
|
|-
|24
|Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it Jehovah-shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abi-ezrites.
|
|
|-
|25
|And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, Take thy father's young bullock, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that thy father hath, and cut down the grove that is by it:
|
|
|-
|26
|And build an altar unto the LORD thy God upon the top of this rock, in the ordered place, and take the second bullock, and offer a burnt sacrifice with the wood of the grove which thou shalt cut down.
|
|
|-
|27
|Then Gideon took ten men of his servants, and did as the LORD had said unto him: and so it was, because he feared his father's household, and the men of the city, that he could not do it by day, that he did it by night.
|
|
|-
|28
|And when the men of the city arose early in the morning, behold, the altar of Baal was cast down, and the grove was cut down that was by it, and the second bullock was offered upon the altar that was built.
|
|
|-
|29
|And they said one to another, Who hath done this thing? And when they inquired and asked, they said, Gideon the son of Joash hath done this thing.
|
|
|-
|30
|Then the men of the city said unto Joash, Bring out thy son, that he may die: because he hath cast down the altar of Baal, and because he hath cut down the grove that was by it.
|
|
|-
|31
|And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be put to death whilst it is yet morning: if he be a god, let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his altar.
|
|
|-
|32
|Therefore on that day he called him Jerubbaal, saying, Let Baal plead against him, because he hath thrown down his altar.
|
|
|-
|33
|Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the children of the east were gathered together, and went over, and pitched in the valley of Jezreel.
|
|
|-
|34
|But the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet; and Abi-ezer was gathered after him.
|
|
|-
|35
|And he sent messengers throughout all Manasseh; who also was gathered after him: and he sent messengers unto Asher, and unto Zebulun, and unto Naphtali; and they came up to meet them.
|
|
|-
|36
|And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said,
|
|
|-
|37
|Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said.
|
|
|-
|38
|And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water.
|
|
|-
|39
|And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.
|
|
|-
|40
|And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.
|
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 7==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and pitched beside the well of Harod: so that the host of the Midianites were on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley.
|
|
|-
|2
|And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.
|
|
|-
|3
|Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.
|
|
|-
|4
|And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.
|
|
|-
|5
|So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.
|
|
|-
|6
|And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.
|
|
|-
|7
|And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.
|
|
|-
|8
|So the people took victuals in their hand, and their trumpets: and he sent all the rest of Israel every man unto his tent, and retained those three hundred men: and the host of Midian was beneath him in the valley.
|
|
|-
|9
|And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, Arise, get thee down unto the host; for I have delivered it into thine hand.
|
|
|-
|10
|But if thou fear to go down, go thou with Phurah thy servant down to the host:
|
|
|-
|11
|And thou shalt hear what they say; and afterward shall thine hands be strengthened to go down unto the host. Then went he down with Phurah his servant unto the outside of the armed men that were in the host.
|
|
|-
|12
|And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea side for multitude.
|
|
|-
|13
|And when Gideon was come, behold, there was a man that told a dream unto his fellow, and said, Behold, I dreamed a dream, and, lo, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the host of Midian, and came unto a tent, and smote it that it fell, and overturned it, that the tent lay along.
|
|
|-
|14
|And his fellow answered and said, This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel: for into his hand hath God delivered Midian, and all the host.
|
|
|-
|15
|And it was so, when Gideon heard the telling of the dream, and the interpretation thereof, that he worshipped, and returned into the host of Israel, and said, Arise; for the LORD hath delivered into your hand the host of Midian.
|
|
|-
|16
|And he divided the three hundred men into three companies, and he put a trumpet in every man's hand, with empty pitchers, and lamps within the pitchers.
|
|
|-
|17
|And he said unto them, Look on me, and do likewise: and, behold, when I come to the outside of the camp, it shall be that, as I do, so shall ye do.
|
|
|-
|18
|When I blow with a trumpet, I and all that are with me, then blow ye the trumpets also on every side of all the camp, and say, The sword of the LORD, and of Gideon.
|
|
|-
|19
|So Gideon, and the hundred men that were with him, came unto the outside of the camp in the beginning of the middle watch; and they had but newly set the watch: and they blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers that were in their hands.
|
|
|-
|20
|And the three companies blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers, and held the lamps in their left hands, and the trumpets in their right hands to blow withal: and they cried, The sword of the LORD, and of Gideon.
|
|
|-
|21
|And they stood every man in his place round about the camp: and all the host ran, and cried, and fled.
|
|
|-
|22
|And the three hundred blew the trumpets, and the LORD set every man's sword against his fellow, even throughout all the host: and the host fled to Beth-shittah in Zererath, and to the border of Abel-meholah, unto Tabbath.
|
|
|-
|23
|And the men of Israel gathered themselves together out of Naphtali, and out of Asher, and out of all Manasseh, and pursued after the Midianites.
|
|
|-
|24
|And Gideon sent messengers throughout all mount Ephraim, saying, Come down against the Midianites, and take before them the waters unto Beth-barah and Jordan. Then all the men of Ephraim gathered themselves together, and took the waters unto Beth-barah and Jordan.
|
|
|-
|25
|And they took two princes of the Midianites, Oreb and Zeeb; and they slew Oreb upon the rock Oreb, and Zeeb they slew at the winepress of Zeeb, and pursued Midian, and brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon on the other side Jordan.
|
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Meteor

2013-02-21T15:20:33Z

MelH: /* A meteor is a kind of stone that falls from the sky. */

==A meteor is a kind of stone that falls from the sky. ==
Aren't the often just lumps of ice? The whole sentence sounds a little bit flippant. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:50, 19 February 2013 (EST)

:Agree on the tone: one might almost think the article was written by someone trying to discredit the encyclopedia.

:If you check science sources, they distinguish between rocky [[meteoroid]]s and icy [[comet]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:55, 19 February 2013 (EST)

:The first and third sentences really should be combined: if a meteoroid does not enter the atmosphere, it is not a meteor. "Shooting star" or "falling star" are common names for meteors, not a special case of meteors. Also, "falls through the sky" is not very precise terminology. The third sentence's "enters Earth's atmosphere" is better. Finally, "fireball" describes a large meteor, one that takes many seconds to disintegrate in the atmosphere. The vast majority of meteors are not fireballs. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 02:37, 21 February 2013 (EST)

::Please make those changes, Mel. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:52, 21 February 2013 (EST)
:::Done. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 10:20, 21 February 2013 (EST)

Meteor

2013-02-21T15:18:53Z

MelH:

A '''meteor''' is a ''[[meteoroid]]'' (a small rocky object in space) that has entered the Earth's atmosphere. Friction causes it to burn in the atmosphere, causing the meteor to glow brightly. For this reason, a meteor is often referred to as a "shooting star" or "falling star". Most meteors are small and burn up in less than a second, but some very large ones glow brightly for many seconds and are called "fireballs" or "bolides." (See also [[Asteroid]]).

An exceptionally large meteor may not burn up completely in the atmosphere. If part of a meteor hits the ground, it becomes known as a ''[[meteorite]]''.

A major source of meteors lies between [[Mars]] and [[Jupiter]], an enormous cluster of meteoroids also known as the [[asteroid belt]] (or [[Kuiper Belt]]). Other (minor) meteoroid belts and clouds exist, and when the [[Earth]] passes through them periodic [[meteor shower]]s occur, such as the [[Perseiids]], [[Geminids]], and [[Taurids]].

Earth's orbit is far inside the belt between between Mars and Jupiter; another lies just outside of our solar system.
Meteoroids from those belts break free and may collide with Earth.

There are currently several hundred known [[asteroid]]s, called Apollo asteroids, that are in Earth-crossing orbits.

==Culture and History==
The ancient [[Greek]]s believed that the stones were [[Zeus]]'s thunderbolts. A famous quote by [[Thomas Jefferson]]:

:"I would sooner believe that two [[Yankee]] [[professor]]s lied, than that stones fell from the sky."[http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/atlantis/greek.html]

[[Category: Astronomy]]